A Rational Look at Irrationality: Steven Pinker
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 10. 2023
- Renowned cognitive scientist and author Steven Pinker explains the link between rationality and progress, and reminds us how we can take advantage of the powerful tools of reasoning that our species has discovered over the millennia
- Věda a technologie
After a run through various youtube rabbit holes, a Steven Pinker speech always gives me hope.
Hope is important. Always remember hope.
If I were to introduce someone to Pinker's wisdom, this is the lecture I'd choose. It should be mandatory viewing for everyone on the planet. The modern complement to The Sermon on the Mount.
Always a pleasure to be in touch with Pinker's sound reasoning and rethorical smoothness! Time to read some of his books now.
Great man Mr.Pinker....
More of such Great thinkers and their rational thinkings.....❤
Thrilling clarity! We need more of this. Thank you!
Pinker's Rationality is a relatively small book, yet it's quite challenging to read, this is despite his excellent writing skills in reaching his readers. Pinker's masterpiece is The Better Angels of Our Nature, a book that should be in each and every library, bookshelf and made a compulsory history subject in every school and universities. Enlightenment Now is yet another masterpiece of his. How the Mind Works is a must read if one wished to understand how evolution solved the challenges of sight, frame of reference and intelligence. I think it's a must read to understand modern AI too.
Pinker is a discredited paid hack.
Wikipedia's biggest weakness is articles concerning anything related to products and services for sale are skewed by the entities that sale them.
Should be mandatory teaching in high school.
Great talk
I'm genuinely enthralled by your video! - "Obstacles are the building blocks of growth..."
We can't reach the peak of our potential by going downstairs.
Our desire for community exceeds our thirst for truth. Hence the abuse of social media.
Thank you very much...
Instead of “40”, this should have at least 40 million views.
It seems to be implied from Steven Pinker that we need to know the basics of philosophy
true power
Share this!
He is positive, not by philosophical theory, but by the numerical theory of physics.
Charles Dickenss it best :
It was the best of times, and the worst of times.
You know, I find some of this extremely interesting, and also incorrect. Many "air brained" irrational beliefs do have some (and I emphasise some, not all) rational basis.
For example, all of our pharmaceuticals did come originally from herbal remedies.
A few drops of yeast in warm water and sugar will multiply and transform the liquid from what we would define and perceive as water into a substance we can then use for fermentation purposes. I think all humans have a concept of the difference between 'living' and 'non-living' (although of course that boundary can get a bit blurry when looking at prions and viruses etc.).
It also seems incorrect to describe 'fasting' as an 'air brained' concept - it is part of weight management and can also be an effective cure for type 2 diabetes and many weight-related diseases...hardly an 'air brained' concept. It works and has been proven to do so.
I think Pinker is barking up the wrong tree here. The irrationality is not necessarily in the social behaviour and observations that Pinker describes here - they seem more like symptoms.
In effect, it's in over-extrapolation without using the scientific method to deduce the accuracy of the hypotheses (ironically, what Pinker is also doing here by describing symptoms of irrationality rather than causes).
Even the most intelligent scientists, doctors, intellectuals and leaders are not in any sense completely rational. We access rationality by learning from our mistakes or misdiagnosis (both in our own lives and through intergenerational learning, history, studying philosophy and science, mathematics etc.) .
I am personally glad we are not entirely rational. That would seem like a very boring, robotic world indeed.
Seems like alot of the examples and points were copied off of robert greene
Much of this seems to be inspired by Not born yesterday
BTW conspiracies do exit, as snowden, wiki leaks and many more, which came to light.
And recognising conspiracy and propaganda it totally rational because its based the very logic that these things will benefit the top rich people. ✌️✌️
"How can we be more rational?" Quit raising kids religious.
💯
But your statement is fallacious on a philosophical level
Surely, but that does not mean that they will become completely rational. A lot of them will still hang onto the paranormal, astrology, parapsychology, etc.
It is not irrational to believe in God or otherwise participate in religion as long as you do not believe that it is scientific or rational on a materialist basis. It is metaphysics, not physics.
It is conversely irrational to be a materialist and argue that there is no value in religion or metaphysics simply because it is not scientific.
I lived most of my life staunchly against religion and metaphysics and only recently began to appreciate that it has great practical value for society and individuals. The fact that religion is not rational materialistically does not deny its practical value in helping people and groups become better.
Can religion do harm? Certainly. Can materialist rationality do harm? Absolutely: nuclear weapons, unchecked capitalism, unchecked socialism, defunding arts and social sciences (including philosophy and non-mathematical logic) as they do not produce as much quantifiable return to human flourishing, etc.
@@OddTJ Religion and materialist rationality are not on the same page. You are correct that religion is not irrational per se, but at the same time religion is not true. Things can be both rational and empirically false. Yes, religion can be practical and helpful, but there is no evidence that metaphysics exist. Nuclear weapons are just the result of applied sciences, but science is just the best method we have of approaching the truth. What we do with the method is another question, and that leaves us in the field of ethics, which is a completely different subject.
Mr Pinker is wrong. We are rational (thinking) and also (feeling} beings. The feeling part is often described as non-rational but imagine a person without feelings. Society labels such persons as sociopaths. A person without feeling, operating from reason alone, can behave as a Frankenstein, something society definitely does not want. What Mr. Pinker should address is not the supremacy of reason but the necessity of a balance between reason and feeling in all our actions. We have lived through the Age of Reason, the environment is almost destroyed and our continued existence is even in question. When are those who give talks going to get this, instead of continuing to perpetuate a point of view which is unbalanced and unhelpful in our current predicament and instead educate people on the full use of the faculties we have been given rather than emphasis on one faculty alone, which is both limiting and dangerous in our present situation.
Imagine a world with nothing but feelings - overcome by bouts of anger, spite, jealousy or needless hurt, evolution probably weeded such out. Wisdom suggest listening critically to both voices and updating fallacies in the Bayesian manner as Pinker suggests.
There should not be an emphasis on reason alone or on feelings alone but on a balance between both in our actions. Either one left out of the equation in our actions is not good and outcomes lack balance.
Incredibly smart , accomplished, and articulate, but his "it's a short step to" is a veiled Guilt by association or slippery slope fallacy. Both errors of formal logic, with deep philosophical justification and history. It also has the effect of creating a straw person argument. Instead of taking down the actual argument, you just take down a somewhat related argument.. I'm confused how building one's argument based on logical fallacies is helpful. Does he know he's doing it? I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't know he was doing this.
Have you read the book?
@@alexkreyn315 I took issue with his use of "its a short step to." Pinker is a Harvard academic, and doesn't seem to recognize he's making a logical fallacy. And this isn't the first time honestlhy.
...but he's not using " it's a short step to" to advance his argument. He's pointing out that's one of the ways we fool ourselves and arrive at irrational positions.
@@nathanketsdever3150 he’s not making a logical fallacy. He’s written a book specifically targeted to debunking such fallacies.
Time stamp?
There's just so much wrong with this video.
Care to explain what you think is wrong in this video?